Obama's main problem is that he has waited too long and now he has to take much more drastic measures than he would have earlier. Assad's forces are taking the upper hand and have the overt help of Hezbollah and Iran, along with Russian backing and threats against a no-fly zone. But once the US gets involved, the goal can't be to just put things back the way they were a few months ago with the rebels slowly winning. That would make it appear that the US is happy with the two sides killing each other for the foreseeable future. It's really a no-win situation for Obama.

A victory by Bashir al Assad would most likely mean:
1) A serious backlash against former rebels, mainly Sunni Muslims.
2) A continuation of the situation which lead to the war in the first place.
A victory by Sunni rebels would most likely mean:
1) A serious backlash against Alawite Muslims (to whom al Assad and his family belong) as well as other groups making up their power base in Siria, formed mainly of minorities including Shia Muslims, Druze, Christians etc.
2) The replacement of one dictatorship by another, possibly worse one.

The establishment of a no fly zone, as proposed be TE, sounds risky, for reasons put forward by TE itself. It sound like a good recipe for a drawn out war, with disastrous effects for Siria.

I sincerely hope that President Obama's promise to arm the rebels is a ruse to bring al Assad's government to the negotiating table. The negotiation of a gradual transition to democracy would be a win-win solution to the present debacle, paving the way for the country to move forward in all aspects.

With unenviable timing President Barack Obama’s has decided to send unspecified “direct military support” to Syria’s Sunni rebels ramping up the stakes with Shia globally (The Assad Regime is Shia), just at the moment when moderates need encouragement in Iran. The evidence that has been used to give cover for this active participation (use of poison gas) seems pretty thin and is strangely reminiscent of the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ ruse used in Iraq. Despite the opportunities to further the moderates cause in Iran it seems that Obama wants to keep up the Presidential tradition of starting an unwinnable war, that has been in place since the time of Bill Clinton.
Sunni-Shia tensions became centre stage after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 that catapulted the Shia majority in Iraq to power. Iraq became a sectarian conflict Sunni and Shia. Syria is now in the same place and the last thing we need is for the USA to be taking sides. http://getwd50.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/obamas-mad-plan-to-arm-opposition-...

Let's look at our involvement in the Middle East/South Asia over the past 50+ years
- We have propped up Israel and earned the hatred of most of the Middle East
- We propped up the Shah of Iran and got unceremoniously kicked out of there
- We supported Saddam Hussein's rise to power and bankrolled his war against Iran
- We prop up the rulers of Saudi Arabia via our military
- We propped up Mubarak in Egypt for the past 40 years ($5 billion / year)
- We funded and armed the Mujaheddin (and ultimately Bin Laden) in our quest to knock down the Russians
- We funded and armed Pakistan (and supported its Madrassas and dictators)
- We prop up the rulers of Kuwait via our military (and rescued them in 1991 from our erstwhile friend, Saddam)
- We invaded Iraq to kick out our old-friend and new-enemy Saddam
- We invaded Afghanistan after our old pals (the Mujaheddin) helped, sheltered and supported the 911 terrorists
- We supported the new hard-line Islamic government in Egypt
- We supported the Libyan rebels (who killed our ambassador)
We are now planning to support Al Qaeda against the Syrian dictator
Haven't we learned NOT to interfere with those countries?

"I dearly hope that the policy documents the State Department is now drawing up regarding American military aid to Syrian rebel groups do not read 'Goal: Keep POTUS from looking like a wuss.'"

It is. And it will cost us dearly, in our wallets and pocketbooks and, please God forbid, in our servicemen and servicewomen.

Per usual, Obama and his administration have no plan. So he and they will have more blood on their hands because insecure, mendacious, bloviating, Marxist-Leninist Obama tries so hard, at times, to be what he is not: a leader, a man, a man of character and integrity.

Yes and I have a bridge that I want to sell you The Economist. Obama is a wuss. He is doing this because:

1) He has no choice...he has buggered up the entire Syria debacle with his lead from behind example
2) He hates Clinton so feels the pressure
3) Scandal after scandal is rocking this administration...this is about diverting attention.

I'm wondering why you'd put Clinton on that list. I'm sure you personally disliked him, but it seems rather odd to call the Clinton administration a failure when it presided over a prolonged period of economic prosperity. I'm also surprised you'd leave Bush Jr off the list - a man widely acknowledged to be one of the worst post-war Presidents.

If Clinton had been a man of character and taken out Osama bin Laden and company when no one in the world knew who he was, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened, no DHS, no war in Iraq/Afghanistan, no Obama, no 17 trillion dollar debt. OBL and company had bombed 2 American embassies, attacked the USS Cole... during Clinton's 8 years as President. In August 1996 OBL publicly declared war against the US. That is not to say Islamic terrorism would no longer exist if Clinton had killed OBL, but one can make an educated guess that it would still be at a low level as it had been, building up to his presidency. GWB ran for President as a non-interventionist in international affairs, with his major domestic goals of Social Security and Tax reform. That agenda was decimated on 9/11 because of the biggest failure of any US President in our history.

Obama has already waited far too long to intervene. If he had taken action earlier, prior to heavy Iranian and Hizballah involvement, he may have scared them off and prevented the escalation of sectarian tensions that clearly comes with the entrance of the Shii'te militia. Intervention also prevents the likelihood of greater Israeli involvement (as detailed in this article: if you're looking for further reading: http://jcpa.org/irans-arms-supply-to-hizbullah-international-dimensions/) and thus diminishes the chance if Syria turning into a wider conflict. Obama's intervention needs to happen fast and effectively, for all of the reasons stated by the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/opinion/5-reasons-to-intervene-in-syri...) and The Economist.

Except for the a few clever Zionists, most people in the West believed Clinton that the Talibans are just another bunch of students or school kids from the Madrassahes.
The same folks in the West now have faiths in Obama and his 3 Graces of Intervention that the Salafis are just like your brothers.

Clinton is best at lying and absolutely counterproductive in any foreign policy advice. Clinton not only brought talibanisation of Afghanistan but by his support of KLA terrorists - remnants of the Ottoman pillaging in Europe - he gave impetus to al Qaida residency in Europe and all because of his desperate attempt deflecting Monica affairs from the front pages.

“NATO ultimately intervened in the former Yugoslavia to make it clear that ethnic cleansing was a war crime, and would not be part of the politics of post-communist Eastern Europe and the Balkans.” In view of the current cleansing of Serbs and their Christian culture from Kosovo the above statement is nothing but a sleazy hypocrisy.

Are we (the West) better off replacing relatively stable and secular regimes with religious radicals in Egypt, Iraq or Libya? Is Syria next? For once the US should follow wishes of the silent majority and not the AIPAC interests.

Seven is an Obama apologist. Sorry Seven, Obama is right there with Carter as one of the worst presidents of all time. And you and the MSM have themselves to blame. If you would have been critical of Obama, like I am sure you were to every other president, Obama might have felt pressure to produce. But instead, you and the MSM allowed Obama to do stupid things and never get called on it. Your slobbering love affair with Obama will be his undoing. He will go down in history as one of the weakest most ineffectual president. Look at yourself in the mirror, because you are to blame, not the Republicans.

Is this really a reply to my post? My post is anything but Obama apologist; in fact it is a negative reaction to “Barack Obama's decision yesterday to begin providing limited military aid to the Syrian rebels”. Where is the “blame of Republicans” coming from? Read it again!

While the Obama dude reaches his Monica moment as the Cyber-hacking in chief, the advices from the Clinton dude should be taken with a grain of salt because of his own self-interests in the Ummah affairs:-
a) Clinton is a spouse of the crazy Grace of intervention and need to protect his legacy.
b) Clinton is responsible for the Talibanisation of Afghanistan and Pakistan with the weaponisation through the Pakis ISI with his pal Haq and lieutenant Musharraf.
Clinton is primarily responsible for the Rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. You don't have to be a genius to learn about the griefs from victims of Wahhabist terrorism arising from the Clintonite bushshits to understand the pains. Worst for the people of the AfgPak, they in additions have to bear the brunt of foreign occupation and now, droning by CIA operatives in the region.
Now the mantle to foster the Rise of the Moslem bros and Salafism in the Ummah is passed to the neo-liberal apostate dude and his backward assing Graces of Interventions with his Saudi Gulf emirate pals.

America is bankrupt. It prints paper money and runs an illusory economy, and the world is also caught up in it. Somehow or other Russia and China should get American soldiers into Syria, just like what happened in Iraq. Then they can relax.

Sure, there are quite a few who dearly miss similar characters in history. No surprise there. Pretty much most the Sunnis miss Saddam; the Shia and the Kurds not so much. Good old Stalin, Mao and others, whose name will not be mentioned for fear of calling down Godwin's law on my head, are missed dearly by many more than any decent person would care to admit...

Were I able to make sense of your post addressed to me, I would answer it; but I cannot. So, just go ahead and imagine that I replied in a way that disagrees with your question - whatever that might have been...
I have no idea where you might be from, but your hatred towards my country seems rather pathological. Hanging Obama? WTF, you sick character?

No doubt that, in your mind, or what passes for it, Obama is equivalent to Saddam (I am guessing you meant that Hussein); and to Gaddafi. Quite a few citizens of the countries that were ruled by the mentioned characters don't share your rather twisted take on history. I cannot even begin to venture a guess at what might constitute "norm" for you and your ilk, so I cannot answer your question. Thanks for asking for my opinion regarding what is considered a "norm", but I am afraid you would not understand my explanation; of that I am quite sure...

“Sure, there are quite a few who dearly miss similar (Saddam) characters in history.” Naivety!

You still do not understand that Saddam dealt with religious radicals more efficiently than the American soldiers with Iraqis civilians - count the bodies. Moreover he kept al Qaeda out of Iraq and now in-power Shia radicals from chummy relation with Iran ayatollahs. Iraq war broke American treasury and made ME more unstable – “brilliant” mission accomplished.

This is purely about Obama's 'legacy', which is a euphemism for only caring about how he looks, not the actual merits of anything he does for anyone else or for the common good. Obama only does anything to cement his power over others, to pay back favors to contributors to his never ending campaign, and to burnish his media-created, media-fed image; purely self-serving in any and every way. Beneath this phony veneer is a complete lack of sincerity in ding what is right. World history will hopefully judge this complete sham as harshly as he deserves.

You know what? nature abhors vaccume .so is the us foreign policy in middle east .remember that Jewish guy once asked does us needs a foreign policy ? I think the question still is relevant today and a would be as long as us is a global power . He wrote it neatly when there were voices in us congress and DC streets bring the troops back .i think he advised the then us president G.W.Bush.we will come back there George coz Aristotle rightly put it this way Horror vacui.

The time for intervention is Syria is long past due. There have been horrific crimes against humanity and war crimes perpetrated against the Syrian people which have gone unchecked by those having a moral duty -- due to having the means -- to do so.

The cumulative failures to intervene make those have failed look a lot worse than mere "wusses".

This, or any other blog, is merely an exchange of thoughts/ideas: one initiates and another responds. You seem to have a rather curious idea about the primacy of the initiated thought/opinion. You seem to entertain the idea that (s)he who initiates has something more valid, more noble, more worthy to offer than the one who responds. Very curious idea, indeed. If you cannot see the fallacy of that proposition, would you mind enlightening me why is it that you respond to others' primary posts?
ANY person - the initiators and the responders - cannot do anything but form thoughts/ideas according to their psyches, intellectual dispositions and capacities. What else could they do?
Whatever you might have done (we have only your word for it...) for the "improvements in the performance of American defense technology" has nothing to do with going to Syria and doing your part NOW. It is very easy to be moral, courageous, and all that, when it is no skin off your nose, sir/madam. You expressed your opinion (your prerogative); and I responded (my prerogative).
About my aim. Your response belies your claim sir/madam...
So, will you answer the initial question, or you will just make attempts at deflecting it?
Have a nice day and good luck to you.

So, the best you can do, in reply to a person making the point that intervention in Syria is long past due, is make a personal comment (attack?) suggesting that the one making the intervention point in this blog, should in your "mind", as the price for making that point, book a flight to Syria so as to intervene personally?

Some of your writings in TE are not bad, but that one was absolutely moronic.

Over 70,000 people have lost their lives in Syria, which begs the question of long-ago intervention, noting that certainly my comments in this blog --long ago -- were in favor of rapid intervention.

So you would like to know if, having advocated intervention in Syria, I have booked a flight to Syria to engage in personal intervention in their internal conflict?

That is your question?

Is it your suggestion that I should hold myself out as a military representative of my own country? Or act as a simple mercenary in this conflict?

If that is the case, then I presume that in all matters where you have rendered a post in this blog in favor of intervention/action by others, of some type, you have acted as your own government and flown off to intervene directly in such matters?

It is certainly interesting to have the opportunity to observe the bizarre reasoning processes which flow from such bizarre psyches as your own, as reflected by your posts here. Beyond weird.

This is my last communiqué with you, ever. You, sir/madame, still did not answer the question. You do not have either the curtesy, or the decency, or the courage to just simply answer the posed question; or to simply state that you will not answer it. Your ranting and raving does not qualify as an answer.

Answers are not owed to the foolish questions put forth by intellectual lightweights, whose response to a government intervention is to demand to know if the poster is personally intervening in a military matter outside of his own country. Completely bizarre, and wildly off point.

It is very gratifying, however, to know that I have seen your last communiqué ever to me. Better for you to expend your energies with those who consider your low standard of reasoning and argument to be equal to their own.

Ban Ki-moon is right to contempt US to arm Syrian rebels.
We must support Ban Ki-moon to contempt US(UK&the lot) to arm Syrian rebels who brutally kill people,commit atrocities,commit war crimes just the same:see the rebels eating human heart/organs alive,see Syrian rebels executed a boy for insulting Islam.
To arm the rebels will only aggravate & intensify the violence knowing full well the rebels use such lethal arms to brutally kill people,commit atrocities &war crimes.
US(UK&the lots)hands are full of blood.
MrObama,ask yourself,did you deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?Are you not ashamed to get it in 2009?
It is hypocrisy at its best!
This is sectarian civil war.We've no business getting involved at all as it'll only make the vicious cycle even worse leading to more killing fields,Obama must learn the painful lesson of G.Bush/T.Blair stupid mistake to invade Iraq illegally.
Until G.Bush/T.Blair are charged as war criminals,otherwise these politicians&their generals are just taking too lightly to wage wars leading to killing fields everywhere.
When you get involved with all these trouble spots,you make yourself enemy that everyone try to attack you,so get the hell out of all trouble spots quickly&immediately.
After wasting trillions of dollars in Iraq/Afghanistan/other trouble spots,after million of lives(soldiers,civilians)killed/injured/traumatized,what do we achieve?
If UK,France are hellbent to fight,let UK/France send their troops to Syria to kill&to be killed but there's no justification for US to put any Americans in harm's way.
Moreover,there're tons of domestic problems(unemployment,debt-ceiling,twin deficits,sequester,social problems.etc)that US must be focusing and we need all the limited resources to fix them.
We all know many Syrian rebels are Al-Queda-linked terrorists.
We all know some nations are arming Syrian rebels with lethal weapons the rebels use to brutally kill people,commit atrocities,commit war crimes just the same:see the rebels eating human heart/organs alive,see Syrian rebels executed a boy for insulting Islam:where's human right watch group?where's International Criminal Court?
Mr.Obama, do you want US to waste more trillions dollars, another million more lives killed/injured/traumatized?
There's simply no justification for US to put any Americans in harm's way.

Oh yes UTY, let's let the idiot UN drive our decisions. While Syria gets weapons from Russia and fighters Iran and Terrorist organizations we just do nothing because of the genius UN. Have you got a reptilian brain? Is your IQ < 50? Give me a break. The US needs to arm the rebels and kick some god damn ass. Obama's problem is that he listened to wuss's like you. time to go in and kick ass and tell people like you to crawl back into your peacenik holes where you belong. You must be a relative of Neville Chamberlain.